9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Ganesh Sharma for the Respondent. ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Sanjay Sharma and M/s. Ocean Capital Limited through Sanjay Sharma, against the judgment/order of Special Judge (Fake Currency Notes Cases) Court Jaipur City whereby appeal filed by the petitioner No. 1 against the judgment dated 1-2-2002 of Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Court, Jaipur City was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 2-3-2001 Bhullan Singh, Assistant Registrar of Companies, Raj., Jaipur filed a complaint under section 162 of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short 1956 Act ) against M/s. Ocean Capital Ltd. through Director Sanjay Sharma, Sanjay Sharma, Ajay Sharma and Vijay Sharma. M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir statement under section 313, Cr.P.C. the petitioners denied all the allegations which had been made against them by the prosecution. In defence three witnesses were produced. The Special Judicial Magistrate after hearing both the parties vide its judgment dated 1-2-2002 acquitted co-accused Ajay Sharma and Vijay Sharma of offence under section 162 of 1956 Act. The petitioners were convicted of the offence under section 162 of 1956 Act and sentence of fine of Rs. 450 was imposed against each of the petitioners. In default of payment of fine the petitioners were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment of 7 days each. The trial Court also awarded expenses of litigation to the complainant at the rate of Rs. 50 against each of the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer of attorney Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 which show the name of petitioner No. 1 as subscriber of the company and which bears the signatures of petitioner No. 1 that he was Director of the Company which is wholly illegal. 4. Mr. Ganesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments of the petitioners. The petitioner is admittedly Director of the Company as is evident from Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2, which are power of attorney given by the Board of Directors of the Company. I have gone through the judgments of both the Courts and in my opinion there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below. The Courts below only imposed the sentence of fine. The orders of the Courts below do not call for any interference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
